Time to read THE LAST CENTURION?

The E wrote:Heavily flawed, because the only thing he can imagine a democrat government doing in crisis is "become Maoist China" -- Which I imagine is a vision you agree with, TFLY, but as we all know, just because you believe something really deeply doesn't mean it's true.

Thing is, the Republican government would probably do exactly the same if the scale of crisis is really big enough. If your nation is falling apart and the world is in a state of catastrophe, it tyranny or death. If millions are starving, you could not argue endlessly with any farmer who did not want to give half of his yield to government "'cause it ain't fair", despite the currency being meaningless. You just throw the old fool into work camp (or shot him dead, if he trying to resist), because a lot more peoples would die while you are arguing.

Dilandu wrote:

The E wrote:Heavily flawed, because the only thing he can imagine a democrat government doing in crisis is "become Maoist China" -- Which I imagine is a vision you agree with, TFLY, but as we all know, just because you believe something really deeply doesn't mean it's true.

Thing is, the Republican government would probably do exactly the same if the scale of crisis is really big enough. If your nation is falling apart and the world is in a state of catastrophe, it tyranny or death. If millions are starving, you could not argue endlessly with any farmer who did not want to give half of his yield to government "'cause it ain't fair", despite the currency being meaningless. You just throw the old fool into work camp (or shot him dead, if he trying to resist), because a lot more peoples would die while you are arguing.

The trouble with tyrannies is that they tend to hang around after the crisis is over. Besides, one need not go the full strongman approach. Congresses and parliaments are fully capable of authorizing measures to handle things once their attention has been properly focused. I can think of any number of times when that worked and at least one occasion when it failed.

Strongman are almost always the wrong answer. What you do instead is give your president or prime minister authority to deal with the crisis, but insist that he work within sharply defined limits and report back on a regular basis. You get better options for problem solving that way as well as marshalling the public to get behind what needs to be done.

By the way, Rome in its transition period between the republic and the Empire provides an excellent example of how not to handle a crisis, but I'm not going into that at the moment,

Don

-

This is fascinating:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard- ... na-related

Dilandu wrote:

The E wrote:Heavily flawed, because the only thing he can imagine a democrat government doing in crisis is "become Maoist China" -- Which I imagine is a vision you agree with, TFLY, but as we all know, just because you believe something really deeply doesn't mean it's true.

Thing is, the Republican government would probably do exactly the same if the scale of crisis is really big enough. If your nation is falling apart and the world is in a state of catastrophe, it tyranny or death. If millions are starving, you could not argue endlessly with any farmer who did not want to give half of his yield to government "'cause it ain't fair", despite the currency being meaningless. You just throw the old fool into work camp (or shot him dead, if he trying to resist), because a lot more peoples would die while you are arguing.

You two make it so EASY TO UNDERSTAND why Mao was able to murder tens of millions of his own people during the cultural revolution and Stalin was able to kill almost as many to collectivize agriculture. I am particularly amazed at Dilandru commenting about "throwing the old fool into a concentration camp.". You know damn well that a government policy to confiscate crops discourages production and it is the farmers who are the expert producers. Ringo makes it clear that the liberal politicians were confiscating seed stocks which guarantees no food the next year. He is somewhat in accurate because many farmers do store some or all of their production on the farm to be sold when the market is higher. However; the city liberals wouldn't know what is seed (chemically treated and inedible) verses food stock.

You two perfectly demonstrate the mindset that justifies a heavily armed citizenry.

Ringo not withstanding, I think this does raise the question as to how people react when the props get knocked away. The more chaos, the closer we get to "all against all", the more the appeal of totalitarian forms of goverment which in turn leads to the devaluation of the individual. Fairness no longer counts... The old fool is in the way.

Don

-

Now we have this:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ion-report

Airliners along with cruise ships are infamous as environment s that enable transmission of infectious diseases. It is absolutely insane to put known infected patients in a crowded plane with possibly infected that should be quarantined. The only mitigating factor is that everyone is going to be quarantined anyway. However; this increased the risk that more will be infected.

n7axw wrote:Ringo not withstanding, I think this does raise the question as to how people react when the props get knocked away. The more chaos, the closer we get to "all against all", the more the appeal of totalitarian forms of goverment which in turn leads to the devaluation of the individual. Fairness no longer counts... The old fool is in the way.

Don

-

The point that Ringo was making is that the "old fool" isn't a fool. They were the farmers who understood how to grow more food.

TFLYTSNBN wrote: You know damn well that a government policy to confiscate crops discourages production and it is the farmers who are the expert producers.

Yes, and that's exactly why you should not use it except of dire emergencies. What I knew also is that free market would just fell apart in a time of real crisis, and such drastic measures sometimes are the only way to avert the catastrophe.

Ringo makes it clear that the liberal politicians were confiscating seed stocks which guarantees no food the next year.

Oh please, Ringo would vote for Satan, if somebody tell him that Jesus views were quite liberal for his time.

He is somewhat in accurate because many farmers do store some or all of their production on the farm to be sold when the market is higher. However; the city liberals wouldn't know what is seed (chemically treated and inedible) verses food stock.

What Ringo did not understood, is that while farmers are expert in production, they are not experts in large-scale distribution & supply management. The production that could not be stockpiled and distributed fast is as good as no production at all.

You two perfectly demonstrate the mindset that justifies a heavily armed citizenry.

Yeah, so in case of crisis the nation would fell apart and millions who may survive would die because bandits and guerillas with guns would prevent the authorities from maintaining order. The nation would then be re-consistuted under the rule of a most efficient tyrant, who would consolidate enough military power (including armed citizenry) to establish the regime of terror and disarm/destroy any opposition.

Essentially, the heavily armed citizenry at the time of large crisis is tantamount to the establishing of tyranny. Because only ruthless enough tyranny would be able to crush the bands of bandits, rapists and marauders into which those "armed citizens" would quickly turns, and establish some social order.

You see, TFY, we have numerous examples of large-scale social collapse. Somali, Argentina, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Afghanistan. Anywhere the existence of "armed citizens" was a problem, not an advantage, because those "armed citizens" quickly turned into insurgents, who prevented any kind of more or less moderate government from maintaining order. The guns in hands of citizens are barrier, that only tyrant could break.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The point that Ringo was making is that the "old fool" isn't a fool. They were the farmers who understood how to grow more food.

The point that Ringo failed to make (generally because he is probably not aware of it) is that producing something is only a part of the complex process of keeping population fed. There are numerous other stages - from providing the fuel for agricultural machinery up to transporting and distributing the processed food - without which the old fool is exactly the old fool who is sitting on its food supply and trying to took advantage of the others plight. How long it would took for each farmer in state of global crisis to realize, that the market does not exist anymore, that money are valueless, and basically the only thing that government could give him back for his production is protection and basic materials (fuel, energy, fertilizers)? How many millions would die before all old fools stopped to be old fools and finally realize that they must work just to be able to continue to work?

The point is, that in times of real crisis it is impossible to wait until everyone would realize the situation. If food would not be distributed orderly and in sufficient quantity, the hungry citizens would flee the cities (thus stopping the industry), and ravage the countryside, robbing and killing farmers to sustain themselves. And no, "well-armed farmers posse" would not stop the Really Hungry Mob, who are facing death anyway.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

n7axw wrote:Ringo not withstanding, I think this does raise the question as to how people react when the props get knocked away. The more chaos, the closer we get to "all against all", the more the appeal of totalitarian forms of goverment which in turn leads to the devaluation of the individual. Fairness no longer counts... The old fool is in the way.

Don

-

The point that Ringo was making is that the "old fool" isn't a fool. They were the farmers who understood how to grow more food.

Ringo was making his own point; I was making mine which is that a time of economic and social collapse, neither side is rational. Both sides are ruled by fear. So ideology doesn't really count. The strong rule the weak. The big fish swallow the little ones. Anyone who gets in the way is swept aside... all against all.

Any form of economics needs order to function. When that order is absent, the lure of totalitarianism in whatever the form becomes more and more attractive...order at any price.

Don

-